4 ms·

Some examples would help illustrate your points.

by YCode 10y ago

kordless 10y ago
Be spontaneous, is the quick and dirty example. ;) It's hard to have intent to be spontaneous, given it's the inverse of intent. Other examples of internally held double-binds would be jobs, or relationships. Holding a job you do not like in order to live in a place which makes you happy is a double bind. Quitting the job can be imagined to increase happiness, but cause loss of place to live, which itself makes you happy. Loss of happiness is not desired, so quitting is not an option given moving may result in loss of happiness. Let's look at a troll's use of a double bind, with intent to spread the double bind: > Only by enlisting the full potential of women in our society will we be truly able to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain - @potus This is a recent tweet by the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Trump presents two concepts, which are both shown to be irrational: 1. "We" do not enlist the full potential of women in society, and 2. "Our" society, America, is not currently great. Linking them together is achieved by saying "only", which implies that #1 must evaluate to truth in order for #2 to evaluate to truth. i.e. If women, as a group, do not attain their "full potential", and do so by choice for all of us, America will not be great again. "Enlisting" is considered engaging someone in their support of a cause, by either willing or unwilling removal of choice. This statement is, technically, unwilling removal of choice from the group women AND unwilling removal of choice of an individual woman, given she is a member of group women. In this case, the removal of choice is actually done via the hypothesized, and forced, attainment of "full potential" of a woman and women, by "us" (which is really Trump speaking for all of us at this point). This is an impressive play on Trump's part, given this statement, in and of itself, is a double bind. Women, or any other entity or group for that matter, may only achieve their full potential by having internal choice for themselves. No other entity may speak for the potential in another without applying judgment, or removal of choice, from that individual AND be capable of staying rational while doing so. By tacking on the idea of "making America great", any dismissal of the first concept, which again is itself a double bind, enables the use of blame for not wanting to make America great again. As with potential, America is only "great" if people think it's great. If it is to be made "great again", that implies it is not currently great, which itself is an irrational statement.
- YCode 10y ago
  Thanks! I suppose that makes sense.

Some examples would help illustrate your points.

by YCode 10y ago

Some examples would help illustrate your points.

Be spontaneous, is the quick and dirty example. ;) It's hard to have intent to be spontaneous, given it's the inverse of intent. Other examples of internally held double-binds would be jobs, or relationships. Holding a job you do not like in order to live in a place which makes you happy is a double bind. Quitting the job can be imagined to increase happiness, but cause loss of place to live, which itself makes you happy. Loss of happiness is not desired, so quitting is not an option given moving may result in loss of happiness. Let's look at a troll's use of a double bind, with intent to spread the double bind: > Only by enlisting the full potential of women in our society will we be truly able to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain - @potus This is a recent tweet by the President of the United States, Donald Trump. Trump presents two concepts, which are both shown to be irrational: 1. "We" do not enlist the full potential of women in society, and 2. "Our" society, America, is not currently great. Linking them together is achieved by saying "only", which implies that #1 must evaluate to truth in order for #2 to evaluate to truth. i.e. If women, as a group, do not attain their "full potential", and do so by choice for all of us, America will not be great again. "Enlisting" is considered engaging someone in their support of a cause, by either willing or unwilling removal of choice. This statement is, technically, unwilling removal of choice from the group women AND unwilling removal of choice of an individual woman, given she is a member of group women. In this case, the removal of choice is actually done via the hypothesized, and forced, attainment of "full potential" of a woman and women, by "us" (which is really Trump speaking for all of us at this point). This is an impressive play on Trump's part, given this statement, in and of itself, is a double bind. Women, or any other entity or group for that matter, may only achieve their full potential by having internal choice for themselves. No other entity may speak for the potential in another without applying judgment, or removal of choice, from that individual AND be capable of staying rational while doing so. By tacking on the idea of "making America great", any dismissal of the first concept, which again is itself a double bind, enables the use of blame for not wanting to make America great again. As with potential, America is only "great" if people think it's great. If it is to be made "great again", that implies it is not currently great, which itself is an irrational statement.

YCode 10y ago
Thanks! I suppose that makes sense.